SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (530456)1/27/2004 11:21:01 AM
From: PartyTime  Respond to of 769667
 
January 21, 2004

COMMENTARY
State of the 'Vision Thing'
By Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.

The president of the United States, wrote Henry Adams, the most brilliant of American historians, "resembles the commander of a ship at sea. He must have a helm to grasp, a course to steer, a port to seek."

The Constitution awards presidents the helm, but creative presidents must possess and communicate the direction in which they propose to take the country. The port they seek is what the first President Bush dismissively called "the vision thing."

Let us interview another president on this point. Franklin D. Roosevelt was by common consent one of the great presidents of the United States. The presidency, FDR said, "is not merely an administrative office. That's the least of it. It is more than an engineering job, efficient or inefficient. It is predominantly a place of moral leadership. All our great presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain historic ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified." In other words, they were possessed by their visions.

So, FDR continued, Washington personified the idea of federal union. Jefferson typified the theory of democracy, which Jackson reaffirmed. Lincoln, by condemning slavery and secession, put two great principles of government forever beyond question. Cleveland embodied rugged honesty in a corrupt age. Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson were both moral leaders using the presidency as a pulpit. "Without leadership alert and sensitive to change," FDR wrote, "we are bogged up or lose our way,"

But a vision per se is not necessarily a good thing. Adolf Hitler had a vision. Josef Stalin had a vision. Especially when visions harden into dogmatic ideologies, they become inhuman, cruel and dangerous. Bush the elder was generally held to have a vision deficit, but that's not the same as having a defective vision. Bush the elder was a moderate as president, and he did not harm the republic.

Bush the younger is another matter. In his State of the Union address, he presented a medley of visions. Is it reasonable to suppose that the son feels that his father committed two fatal errors, which he is determined not to repeat? One might be the folly of alienating the ideological right. The other — the absence of a vision.

Born again, Bush the younger has a messianic tinge about him. He thinks big and wants to make his mark on history. Four hours of interviews left Bob Woodward with the impression, as he wrote in "Bush at War," that "the president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's master plan."

His grand vision told Bush that American troops invading Iraq would be hailed as liberators, not hated as occupiers, and that the transformation of Iraq under American sponsorship into a Jeffersonian democracy would have a domino effect in democratizing the entire Islamic world.

That dream has waned, and so has the vision that lies behind it. It turns out that the president's vision-free father had a much more accurate forecast of what an American war against Iraq would bring. Bush the elder wrote, defending (with Gen. Brent Scowcroft) his decision not to advance to Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War, "Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs…. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

The United States is today an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. In a couple of years, Bush the younger has succeeded in turning the international wave of sympathy that engulfed the U.S. after 9/11 into worldwide dislike, distrust and even hatred. With his Iraq vision collapsing around him, Bush is trying to dump his self-created mess on the United Nations, heretofore an object of contempt in his administration. And he is trying out a new vision — the moon and Mars.

In this respect he is following the example of President Kennedy, who sought to repair American self-confidence after the Bay of Pigs by proposing to send men to the moon and return them safely to Earth "before this decade is out." A difference is that the preventive war against Iraq was an essential part of the Bush vision, but the Bay of Pigs was not part of the JFK vision. It was a CIA vision inherited from the Eisenhower administration.

I was appalled by Bush's preventive war against Iraq, as I was appalled in the Kennedy White House by the Bay of Pigs. And as I applauded JFK's vision of landing men on the moon, so I applaud Bush's vision of landing men on Mars.

It has been almost a third of a century since human beings took a step on the moon — rather as if no intrepid mariner had bothered after 1492 to follow up on Christopher Columbus. Yet 500 years from now (if humans have not blown up the planet), the 20th century will be remembered, if at all, as the century in which man began the exploration of space.

Some visions are intelligent and benign. Other visions are stupid and malevolent. "Where there is no vision … the people perish," the Good Book says. Where there is a defective vision, people perish too. In a democracy, it is up to the people themselves to make the fateful choice.

Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., a special assistant to the president in the Kennedy White House, has twice won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. His most recent book is "A Life in the Twentieth Century: Innocent Beginnings" (Houghton Mifflin, 2000).

latimes.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (530456)1/27/2004 11:29:40 AM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Rebellion brewing in Saudi city

Assassinations in Sakaka, power base of a branch of the royal family, reflect nationwide anger against the monarchy

By JOHN R. BRADLEY
FOR THE STRAITS TIMES

VENEER OF UNITY CANNOT HIDE ANGER FOR RULING FAMLY

SAKAKA - The rebellion in al-Jouf shows in microcosm what is happening throughout Saudi Arabia.

There is now a near-universal domestic resistance to the rule of the al-Saud family.

For 70 years, it has claimed to have unified the people of the land that it conquered, and afterwards gave its name to.

But it managed to do that only superficially.

Getting rid of the al-Saud is fast becoming a question not only of necessity for ordinary Saudis, but of honour.

A Saudi who gave the Qatar-based satellite television station al-Jazeera an interview about suppression and growing instability in the kingdom last year was arrested minutes later live on air, but he managed to say what none of the local Saudi media is allowed to before he was dragged away.

Abdul Aziz al-Tayyar told al-Jazeera by telephone that Saudi security forces had surrounded his home in Riyadh in September and were preparing to storm his house.

But even as his door was being kicked in, al-Tayyar used his last few minutes of freedom to tell the millions of viewers how 'all tribesmen are now willing to fight this government'.

'We will protect the rights of our people,' he added.

'This is not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia any more. It is a jungle full of monsters - the Saudi people are suppressed. They suffer poverty and unemployment,' he shouted into the telephone. -- John R. Bradley

SAKAKA (Saudi Arabia) - The tiny city of Sakaka in the remote al-Jouf province that borders Iraq may seem an unlikely setting for the beginning of a revolution against the ruling al-Saud family.

But one does not have to spend too long here to realise that this is what is happening.

Al-Jouf has witnessed an extraordinary level of political violence in recent months.

The deputy governor, say local residents, was assassinated.

Also shot down was the police chief, executed by a group of men who forced their way into his home.

Even before these bloody incidents, the region's top Syariah Court judge was shot down as he drove to work early one morning.

Seven men have so far been arrested over the shootings, according to Saudi officials.

They admit that the attacks are linked, and that the seven may have been aided by as many as 40 others.

Elsewhere in Saudi Arabia, such violence could be put down to tribal feuds or the general lawlessness of a remote region.

And there are also, everyone agrees, new social problems in al-Jouf, of the kind that is now plaguing this once crime-free Islamic state.

Archaeological sites, defaced by the graffiti of the alienated, are also littered with the evidence of widespread drug abuse.

But residents of the provincial capital Sakaka insist that the violence here is political.

They say it stems from the fact that al-Jouf is the historic power base of the al-Sudairy branch of the royal family, which includes King Fahd and his six full brothers.

Known as the Sudairy Seven, they include Prince Naif, the Interior Minister, Prince Sultan, the Defence Minister, and Prince Salman, the Governor of Riyadh.

They make all the important economic and political decisions in Saudi Arabia, with the King's favourite son, Abdul Aziz, standing in increasingly for his father.

But all members of the vast al-Sudairy clan consider themselves, and expect others to treat them as, princes and princesses.

When it comes to business and local government in al-Jouf, the clan has ruled the roost for the seven decades since the kingdom was founded.

For more than 40 of those years, the governor was one of their own.

But other merchant families and tribes which were prominent before al-Jouf was incorporated into the Saudi kingdom and al-Sudairy took over are rebelling.

The five streets of Sakaka are now deserted after dusk.

Since the series of killings, members of the al-Sudairy clan have not been able to venture out of their walled villas without an armed guard.

Special security police in bullet-proof jackets and wielding machine guns man permanent roadblocks on the approach roads into the city.

Outsiders allowed in are closely observed by secret police.

On the odd occasion that the visitor is a Westerner, his car is tailed day and night, as much for his own protection as out of inveterate Saudi suspicion.

The families and tribes here are exploiting the vulnerability of a perhaps fatally weakened Saudi ruling family to reassert their territorial claims over those of the al-Sudairy.

As many as 60 per cent of Saudis identify strongly with a tribe.

Since the increased instability following last year's bombings in Riyadh on May 12 and Nov 8, the ruling family has been eager to show that it has the full support of the tribal sheikhs.

But al-Jouf shows what everyone knows: that tribes will switch their 'allegiance' as soon as it is convenient.

Residents say the final straw was the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, when United States troops took control of the airport in the nearby Arar, the kingdom's official border crossing with Iraq.

This was deeply resented by all Saudis, but especially by al-Jouf's residents, who have historic tribal links to Iraqis across the border.

Many local officers in the Saudi army resigned at the time in protest against being relieved temporarily of their duties by US soldiers, say Saudi opposition groups.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Saudis have since sneaked across the border into Iraq to join the jihad against US-led occupation forces.

A number have been arrested by the Iraqi police, who describe them as 'Arab Wahhabis', in a pejorative reference to Saudi Arabia's austere, jihad-oriented brand of Islam.

Other Saudis have been implicated in suicide attacks in Iraq, including one that targeted the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad.

Only four people have so far been caught before they managed to get into Iraq, according to official Saudi government statements, leading many to wonder whether the border guards in al-Jouf are turning a blind eye.

straitstimes.asia1.com.sg



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (530456)1/27/2004 12:00:45 PM
From: tonto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Lizzie, you are wrong. Domestic firms that sell nationally or on a regional basis have not all exported their jobs since 1998. The gains being made in productivity we are doing here through automation and bigger equipment and have not moved our businesses offshore.

Productivity gains stopped working their magic in about 98. Since that time, what you are witnessing in productivity numbers is actually the result of **offshoring** the labor intensive workers. When you offshore a team of 50 leaving only 2 US managers, unless the offshore team are actually employees (most of the time they are not) - then the "productivity" shows up under the manager, somebody like me... in the US.